On 7 Aug 2011, at 16:46, Rob Weir wrote: > On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Simon Phipps <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Maybe I'm too skeptical, but do we really have thousands of non core >>> project members dropping in for minutes at a time, adding information >>> on the architecture of OOo? And build instructions? Looking at the >>> history of these pages, it looks more like this is core dev-enabling >>> information that should be part of the core project website >> >> >> "Thousands" is hyperbole. The wiki has been a meta-community resource > > I'd be happy for someone to to provide a more accurate number.
I assert it is not relevant, regardless of the number. Let's solve problems we have, not problems we don't (and haven't had so far). >> throughout the history of the project, and shutting it down so the only way >> to use it is to sign up to Apache is the wrong move. I see a whole lot of >> YAGNI thinking going on here. How about adopting the principle of being as >> permissive as possible until there's a problem that needs solving? >> > > I agree that we should be as permissive as possible, but consistent > with the need to produce documentation and other project publications > that are authoritative, compatibly licensed, and approved by the PPMC. > There may be other pages on the wiki where these concerns do not > apply, and those can be handled differently. But it is faulty logic, > a false dichotomy, that suggests we either do everything as it was > before or we "shut it down so the only way to use it is to sign up to > Apache". I call straw-man. No-one is asserting that dichotomy. I'm proposing a design principle for the new wiki: allow access as widely as possible and apply restrictions only as problems arise. S.
